User:Bball2023/sandbox

Feminism
In her book Talkin’ Up to the White Women: Indigenous Women and Feminism, Aileen Moreton-Robison discusses an analysis between two groups, white middle-class women in Australian feminism and Indigenous women. Throughout her book she examines how white middle-class women have put themselves at the center of feminist movements in Australia because they hold a position of power and privilege that they refuse to recognize. She calls attention to their ignorance and the dominate position they hold in Australia’s feminist movement to highlight that these two groups of women do not share the same level of oppression. The Indigenous women in Australia cannot be grouped together with white feminism because white feminism isn’t completely inclusive to other oppressed groups of women. It does not address problems that indigenous women face due to their race and not just their gender.

Indigenous Sovereignty
Chapter nineteen, “Incommensurable sovereignties: Indigenous ontology matters”, is Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s chapter in the Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies. In the chapter she analyzes how Indigenous sovereignties and state sovereignty are found in two different epistemologies. She traces the history of European ideas about sovereignty to analyze how it is connected to a racialized ontology of patriarchal white supremacy that has used these ideas to justify taking control of Indigenous territories. As she traces the history of European ideas of sovereignty, she analyzes how the definition of sovereignty has been appropriated since the middle ages. She argues Europeans appropriated what sovereignty meant and turned it into a person that represented ultimate authority or also known as "King as head of state". During the middle ages the definition of sovereignty became connected to religion. In result, the duties of the “King as head of state"  that has ultimate authority over the state were also subjected to "the higher authority of God ''. Therefore in her argument, sovereignty had turned into something that was based in faith that created divided groups of those who were true believers and everyone else. Furthermore, within her analysis, she argues that the development of what sovereignty means has evolved into a patriarchal white sovereignty, based in a monotheistic religion that is seen as a system of power. Following this history of state sovereignty, she also traces the history of Indigenous lands in different countries. Moreton-Robinson gives an overview of the origin story of Indigenous lands in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Hawai‘i, and Australia to exemplify how its history has shaped their idea of sovereignty. Within these different origin stories she discusses their own ideas about the creation of earth and how it's connected to their values for maintaining life. Throughout each of their cultures their land and essentially the earth plays an important role in their life and traditions. They place the same amount of value on their land and how it was created, to the humans that live on it. She emphasizes that the history within these Indigenous lands is important for the discussion of indigenous sovereignty. According to Moreton-Robinson, their ideas about sovereignty that are found in indigenous ontology are incommensurable to Western ideas of sovereignty because it has not been shaped through possession of land or exclusion of people, like state sovereignty has. As an Aboriginal woman of the Goenpul tribe, she has a first hand experience of how Indigenous ontology is an important element of sovereignty for indigenous people. She states that “as resilient existents, our sovereignties continue ontologically and materially; as humans we are the embodiment of our lands.” Within her definitions of indigenous sovereignty in comparison to state sovereignty, she is arguing that they are found in two different epistemologies and have different ontological roots so they cannot be grouped together. She uses this chapter to highlight the importance of Indigenous ontology within discourse because it challenges the existing Western ideas about state sovereignty that have continued to deny the existence of Indegenous sovereignty as a separate thing.

In her book The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty, Aileen Moreton-Robison looks at the analysis of contemporary Indigenous-white relations in Australia that centers around a critical question: “How have race and racialization procesess worked historically and continue in the present at once to enable and to disavow white colonization of Aboriginal lands and Aboriginal people?” Throughout the book she investigates the relationship between race, sovereignty and possession within different themes of property: owning property, being property and becoming propertyless. Although her investigation of these connections are centered through an Australian Aboriginal context, she is trying to recognize a pattern within the first world’s conceptualization of current race theory. She argues that many nations in the first world have naturalized whiteness in their society because of its roots found in colonization. Due to the implications of colonization overtime, she considered these societies as embodiments of white possession. White possession, as Moreton-Robinson writes in her introduction, is a set of logics and rationalising processes that are ‘operationalized within discourses to circulate sets of meaning about ownership of the nation, as part of commonsense knowledge, decision making, and socially produced conventions’. Through her theory of white possession, she critiques tendencies found in whiteness studies and black radical scholarship that displaces the history of indigenous sovereignties that leaves them invisible in civil rights discourse. Her analysis throughout this book is crucial for indigenous studies because it offers a different narrative of indigenous history that has been erased and forgotten within discourse.

In her article, Towards a new research agenda?: Foucault, Whiteness and Indigenous Sovereignty, Aileen Moreton-Robinson critiques the application of sociological thought within Australian sociology. The premise of this critique is centered around Australian sociology's discussion of sovereignty in modernity that excludes Indigenous subjects. She proposes that Australian sociology fails to apply the sociological imagination when examining what sovereignty means for Indigenous history. She uses the sociological imagination for this examination to demonstrate how Indigenous sovereignty has existed within both structure and agency. She looks at the recent studies of Whiteness in Australia and abroad while also including Foucault's conceptual framework found in Society Must Be Defended, to prompt an analysis about Indigenous sovereignty in a new way. Within her analysis she examines literature that questions the epistemological basis of Western law and its application to Indigenous sovereignty struggles while also connecting Foucault’s conceptual framework that looks at the relationship between race, sovereignty and war. She outlines them together to critique existing discourse and propose a new research agenda on indigenous sovereignty.

In her article, Virtuous Racial States: The Possessive Logic of Patriarchal White Sovereignty and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Aileen Moreton-Robinson looks at how Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand disputed the introduction and four key areas of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it was first being put into place. In her analyses, she demonstrates that through their initial resistance in the endorsement of the Declaration, these nation-states established themselves as having higher moral standards that are embedded in patriarchal white sovereignty. She discusses how the existence of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is due to the implications of colonization that is apparent in the twenty-first century. Within Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand she argues that their governments were responsible for enabling the appropriation of indigenous lands through their laws that also resulted in the death of indigenous people that tried to delay this from happening. She furthers this argument through her analysis of the nation-states initial resistance in the endorsement of the Declaration and indicates that their governments used dehumanizing tactics to validate their actions towards indigenous people and their lands,“then sought to make them fully human by exercising benevolence and virtue in its many forms.” The article looks at Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand as the main persistent objectors of its content and the only nation-state to vote against the Declaration. She identifies two key assertions that they made: “The first assertion is that the Declaration is a moral and political document, but not a legally binding one, and the second is that the internal laws of the state will prevail.” Through these assertions she analyzes how the possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty within the governments of these nation-states worked to deprive indigenous people of their moral value. Her main argument in the article notes that although the nation-state's claim to work on protecting Indigenous rights, their persistent opposition to reducing the Declarations content says otherwise. Through the possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty the nation-states argued against the legality of indigenous rights and the contents of the Declaration were reduced to something they hoped to achieve through moral and political force.